People from the Nordic countries are often selected as international mediators in wars and armed conflicts. In a new book, peace researchers at Uppsala University describe what makes mediators specifically from the Nordic countries so popular. Where do they come from, why do they take on these missions and what sort of mandate do they have? The Nordic countries have a long history of mediating in peace processes. Dag Hammarskjöld, Anna Lindh and Staffan de Mistura are three examples. Hans Grundberg is acting as mediator in the current negotiations on Yemen. History offers many examples of mediation initiatives and processes aimed at alleviating and ending ongoing armed conflicts. The way in which the mediators receive their mandate affects the entire process, from the commencement through the negotiations to an agreement and conclusion,” says Isak Svensson, Professor of Peace and Conflict Research. They also introduce the new concept of the ‘Mediation Staircase’ – a tool for assessing successful results in mediation.

An Osaka Metropolitan University research team conducted a study that proposes a transparent multi-task framework that combines a multi-slot user memory with a dynamic gating network to jointly predict the next POI and the next thematic intent.

A new study published in the Journal of Sports Economics finds that the legalization of sports betting in the United States is associated with significant increases in violent and impulsive crime during and immediately after major professional sporting events. Analyzing incident-level crime data from 2017 to 2021, researchers examined crime patterns from the start of a game through four hours after its conclusion across the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

The study finds that states that legalized sports betting following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Murphy v. NCAA experienced increases in assaults, larceny and vehicle theft on game days, with crime rising by roughly 30–70% depending on game context. The largest spikes occurred after home games and when outcomes defied betting expectations, such as when underdogs won.

Importantly, the researchers also identify spillover effects: increases in crime were observed in neighboring states even when those states had not legalized sports betting, suggesting bettors may cross state lines to place wagers and bring associated stress back home.

The findings further suggest a shift in the mechanisms driving betting-related aggression following the COVID-19 pandemic. While earlier increases in crime were primarily linked to financial losses, more recent evidence points to non-financial factors, including heightened emotional stress during close, unpredictable or overtime games.

The study highlights potential social costs associated with the rapid expansion of legal sports betting and underscores the importance of considering public safety and consumer protections alongside revenue generation as more states weigh legalization.

There is little awareness, particularly among clinicians, of the medical and psychological complexities of ‘topical steroid withdrawal’—the body’s adverse response to the prolonged use of these powerful creams to treat inflammatory skin conditions when they are either tapered or suddenly stopped—warn doctors in the journal BMJ Case Reports.

Legalized sports betting comes with a hidden public safety cost: a measurable rise in violent and impulsive crime on game days––even in states without gambling, according to new research led by the University of Michigan.

Researchers Rachel Ruttan and Katherine DeCelles of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management are anything but neutral on neutrality. The next time you're tempted to play it safe on a hot-button topic, their evidence-based advice is to consider saying what you really think.

 

That's because their recent research, based on more than a dozen experiments with thousands of participants, reveals that people take a dim view of others' professed neutrality on controversial issues, rating them just as morally suspect as those expressing an opposing viewpoint, if not worse.